This isn't a spec project, it's an Emory hospital project, they really have total control over this. If you left it up to developers when would we ever see any adaptive reuse? If it's all about maximizing profits at the lowest costs for development. Yeah I know they're in business and have to make a profit, but they're also responsible for their actions and the impacts on the city. The historic building that was saved as part of the Tech Computer Center, the developer had to be pressured to save. It's hard to argue that that development isn't a bit richer for the inclusion now though. Maybe the city should do more to encourage redevelopment though, easements, tax breaks, to encourage developers to go that route. Atlanta historically just doesn't value historic buildings, but they should. Just shrugging it off as making it hard for developers to maximize profits doesn't make sense. Atlanta though, especially Midtown, seems to still have that allowing development at any costs mentality, just glad to have anything going on. If the city though doesn't push for responsible development and historic preservation in the current boom though - when would they ever?

Sorry but If they are building an inpatient facility they would have to gut the building completely to stay within regulations. ventilation and clearance requirements will make that prohibitively expensive to execute. It's an OK building but it isn't large enough to make those kinds of renovations cost productive.

Atlanta though, especially Midtown, seems to still have that allowing development at any costs mentality, just glad to have anything going on.

This is my biggest gripe with development in Atlanta. Seems the city, NPU's, and constituents are relatively okay or passive with whatever is proposed for the sake of progress. Every action (and inaction) has ripples for decades and potentially centuries to come. While things are improving... I cannot help but feel we missed the boat on a lot of aspects. Despite all the transplants, it shouldn't be difficult to have an involved constituency that cares about the sense of place of Atlanta or a city government, planning department, and council members that have more foresight other than bowing to a developer's preference.

Sorry but If they are building an inpatient facility they would have to gut the building completely to stay within regulations. ventilation and clearance requirements will make that prohibitively expensive to execute. It's an OK building but it isn't large enough to make those kinds of renovations cost productive.

If Emory was a good neighbor they never would have bought the land with full intention to demo.

This is my biggest gripe with development in Atlanta. Seems the city, NPU's, and constituents are relatively okay or passive with whatever is proposed for the sake of progress.

That's completely untrue. Midtown has strict guidelines and the DRC regularly requests changes to projects. The city fought Tech when Crum & Forster was at risk a few blocks away.

What you won't find is anyone seriously defending a building that has no historical or architectural significance. Nothing about that building justifies taking hundreds of thousands--if not millions--in opportunity from the owner, who would suddenly have a piece of land that can't be redeveloped. There's no way that would hold up in court.

I was thinking the same. Drone overflights are super harshly regulated here where I am, because drones are still some kind of 'do it yourself', then they may fall down onto one's head.

But you no longer need helicopters to shoot stunning views, and... Oh God, the Parisian authorities are chickens to not allow it more easily.

__________________
psst... A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. (John 13:34)The French are just a bunch of Italians that woke up in a very bad mood - Jean Cocteau.The French? Pathetic! Always obnoxious! The total opposite of the Italians! Paris? Awfully polluted! The unbearable downtown! - (basically unattractive) Carla Bruni.

That's completely untrue. Midtown has strict guidelines and the DRC regularly requests changes to projects. The city fought Tech when Crum & Forster was at risk a few blocks away.

What you won't find is anyone seriously defending a building that has no historical or architectural significance. Nothing about that building justifies taking hundreds of thousands--if not millions--in opportunity from the owner, who would suddenly have a piece of land that can't be redeveloped. There's no way that would hold up in court.

Strict guidelines? Please!

Don't get me wrong. I think they do and have done what they can in a city that has traditionally been so overwhelmingly car-centric and with overall poor planning to boot, but a place with "strict guidelines" would NEVER have allowed developments such as this. http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7...9u5lo1_500.jpg

The Emory site minus the Life of Georgia lot is 2.37 acres. In comparison, Icon Midtown and Whole Foods combined sit on 2.24 acres. Its somewhat understandable if one doesn't see the value in re-purposing older buildings. But the idea that that site can't be developed without demolishing the Life of Georgia building is just complete rubbish.

Don't get me wrong. I think they do and have done what they can in a city that has traditionally been so overwhelmingly car-centric and with overall poor planning to boot, but a place with "strict guidelines" would NEVER have allowed developments such as this. http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7...9u5lo1_500.jpg

The Emory site minus the Life of Georgia lot is 2.37 acres. In comparison, Icon Midtown and Whole Foods combined sit on 2.24 acres. Its somewhat understandable if one doesn't see the value in re-purposing older buildings. But the idea that that site can't be developed without demolishing the Life of Georgia building is just complete rubbish.

I'm missing your point. Both Skyhouses look like total shit.

PS: Atlanta3000 and whomever else wants to argue like y'all have been doing WILL GET BANNED.

PS: Atlanta3000 and whomever else wants to argue like y'all have been doing WILL GET BANNED.

My point is that this developer had to put more effort into making the parking deck and the street-level in general more attractive in the Denver project. In other words the development guidelines for development even in Midtown are comparatively lax when looking at how the urban core of other cities are developed.

Let's consider that decentralized Atlanta may prove a better model for the 21st century than are more traditional, dense, and mass-transportation dependent centers such as Manhattan and the European cities. Consider the advantages of abundant hydrocarbons, future exploitation of lithium, and cheap robotics and artificial intelligence. It will be interesting to see how Emory deals with that parcel. I've heard some informed speculation from an employee of Emory Midtown that I'd rather not repeat, but we'll see..

My point is that this developer had to put more effort into making the parking deck and the street-level in general more attractive in the Denver project. In other words the development guidelines for development even in Midtown are comparatively lax when looking at how the urban core of other cities are developed.

Funny thing is, Atlantic House is easily the best development of all of the Novare Skyhouse projects in the country including the parking deck(arguably one of the best parking decks designed in the country this decade). The first skyhouse project in Atlanta was during a time when there were no projects coming into the pipeline and we were just coming off of a bad recession so the DRC was desperate for development so to speak. The very next Skyhouse project in Atlanta was more similar to the one in that picture on the corner of Juniper and 7th.

I just don't think that was a good example of development in other cities being better.

Sorry but If they are building an inpatient facility they would have to gut the building completely to stay within regulations. ventilation and clearance requirements will make that prohibitively expensive to execute. It's an OK building but it isn't large enough to make those kinds of renovations cost productive.

In addition, the floor to floor height of that building would make it nearly impossible for most inpatient or diagnostic treatment areas. Healthcare design requires a ton of space in the plenum, and as well as high ceilings. It's likely that a building of that era would have floor to floor heights too low to support a Healthcare program. However, it's pure speculation that it would be used for Healthcare at all.

The attached parking deck is a nightmare, and should not be considered part of the original, historic structure. I wouldn't lose any sleep if it went away.

The fact of the matter is, hospitals demolish old buildings all the time. This situation is no different from the norm, except for the historic significance of the structure and it's prominent location in the urban fabric. Both sides have legitimate reasons for demolition/preservation.

Pope and Land/Place Properties will also construct 112 new residential units using best practices in modular residential construction, an innovative new building technique that has been successfully used in San Jose, CA and Brooklyn, NY. 30 percent of the units (34 units) will be income-restricted to households earning 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI).